We already do ,
safe:// will be added automagically for you if you dont type a protocol in.
Thus far we’ve had
safe-auth: being used, and we may have some other URL based protocols for triggering certain functionality.
@folaht I think while there could be a protocol written for safe against whatever language, such an endeavour kind of goes against the idea of a protocol, which in the URL sense is to indicate how to treat the rest of the string (as a http or safe req etc). This has to be installed on a user’s system for their device to be able to understand it. So there’s no difference between
whatever:if they both do the same thing… but that depends on a user’s system. Which is why I guess such things are normally standardised to one thing, so we can all share links and know we have appropriate software to handle them…
As to the main question in this thread:
// do we need it. No. In fact I think most system can/will handle
safe://josh exactly the same.
safe: is considered the
As to what should be displayed by default… well that’s a question that was gone over quite intensely (as far as I remember at least) back when the original browser community engagement thread was a go.
safe:// was settled on.
But as I said,
safe://… this is really just a question of what we want a browser to display by default in the URL bar, not what’s actually usable now (which is both).